Nope. Just an acknowledgment that you were ultimately right about those posters even while you were wrong about everything else.

No, it’s giving you a chance to fight on. Basically that was the entire point of the program.

You don’t “fight on” with a vote for poor leadership. You shoot yourself in the kneecaps. Your support for bad candidates puts you in a worse position than if you had studied the context better and kept your hands clean of what you knew and admitted was bad leadership for the country.

Yes, it is. Its surrendering because you are too lazy to continue the fight.

Did you work up a sweat going to the ballot booth, you double-digit-IQ moron? Well, perhaps you did, but certainly no one else will.

When I don’t vote for a candidate, I still cast a ballot to vote for other candidates and propositions. I still vote. So you work no more than I do when you throw your support behind a bad candidate. You just furrow your brow a little bit more when scratching out your votes with a stone age tool.

Of course it logically follows. You just don’t like where the logic takes you because it goes against the grain of how your inbred family taught you to beat your head against a wall.

You also haven’t given me one example of how you worked to improve an elected candidate’s positions who you voted for. I did. You’re apparently one of those guys who likes to talk about working and fighting even as you’re laying down to take a nap.

No, for the zillionth time you vote for the best you can get and then work to hold them accountable.

And as I already told you, that only works up to a point. If you have a candidate who has two or three positions you really dislike, then, yes, it makes sense to support his candidacy and then work to protect yourself from what he might do on those two or three positions.

But if you have a candidate who has more than half-a-dozen positions you dislike, you’re fooling yourself about your potential impact after the election is over. This is especially true of presidents, who have a great deal of arbitrary power in the form of executive discretion. You will either spend your entire time fighting the man you helped elect (and when has that happened?) or you should plan on losing on a great many of those issues you care about. Neither prospect is worth it.

He was, what did you do to make him better?… Nothing other than the Herriot Meyers thing.

Getting Samuel Alito on the high court rather than Harriet Miers was a big deal. (And for our troubles, the president and first lady suggested Miers’ conservative critics were sexist.)

I also mentioned pushing back against Bush’s Iraq policy. I began doing that in January of 2004, but I just couldn’t convince enough conservatives that we were better off focusing on preventing North Korea and Iran from going nuclear (you know, the other two nations in the Axis of Evil) rather than nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan. For several years I fought bitterly with other conservatives trying to get them to see the futility of their approach, but to no avail.

I also fought against Bush’s comprehensive immigration reform, his Medicare Prescription Drug Plan, and NCLB. We got one of out three. Not a good percentage. I also pointed out that the real estate bubble was unsustainable and fueling Bush’s economy. I didn’t get much traction there, either.

In the end, it simply wasn’t worth it. Bush is the GOP’s Jimmy Carter, and my experience with that administration showed me the futility of trying to work within the system when it’s leaning hard against me. For one thing, too many conservatives are like you; they smartly salute and do what they’re told. That’s good in a soldier or Marine, but not in a citizen.

Ummm, no, Someone who isn’t being a petulant child who is deliberately missing the point because they are butthurt over being called out for their insecure bandwagon hopping, Someone who’s reason isn’t clouded by overcompensation and a big chip on their shoulder, Someone who can reason and allow themselves to see the obvious, they might be swayed. But that kind of person probably wouldn’t have fallen for this BS in the first place.

You can’t even sway people here at a conservative site, you moron. What luck are you going to have with independents? No one is going to listen to someone who claims to have the right political ideas when he proudly supports the “less bad choice.” People like you are the reason identification with the GOP is declining.

If you showed some modesty that was more in line with your obvious lack of intelligence you would win more converts to the cause.

He DID have the biggest attack on US soil since 1814 to deal with. It’s kind of sad that he doesn’t get any slack cut for that,

He was given enormous slack for it. Ninety percent of the country supported him in the wake of the attacks. He was then given every allowance to decide what was in the best interests of the country’s national security. He decided to go into Afghanistan light. The American people said fine. He decided to invade Iraq. The American people, including a large number of Democrats, said fine.

But he lost the country when his war leadership failed. And his leadership failed not because of the Democrats or the American public but because of his own decisions. He has no one else but himself to blame.

And really, Where would we have been had president Gore signed international treaties limiting our CO2 emissions? Do you think the USA could ever recover economically with paying even more for energy?

Wasn’t going to happen. Any international treaty require the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate and that number of senators was never going to support the Kyoto Protocol.

Of course Gore would have used his executive power to come to some international agreement, but it wouldn’t have much force and would get immediately overturned when a conservative entered the White House. The Democrats would also get blamed for any adverse economic consequences coming from Gore’s actions.

You don’t get a patriotic pass just because you suspect things would have been worse if you hadn’t supported the “less bad choice.”

No, for the zillionth time you vote for the best you can get and then work to hold them accountable. That you are trying to separate the first from the last is just lame at this point, you have acknowledged the point in it’s entirety before and you still can’t break the argument. Being deliberately obtuse isn’t an argument winner; it makes you look like a moron.

But at least Bush was slightly better than the alternatives.”

He was, what did you do to make him better? Or Schwarzenegger for that matter? Nothing other than the Herriot Meyers thing. Voting isn’t the end of your obligation as a citizen.

Even if you believe this line, you won’t convince anyone who isn’t deeply partisan like you into believing it.

Ummm, no, Someone who isn’t being a petulant child who is deliberately missing the point because they are butthurt over being called out for their insecure bandwagon hopping, Someone who’s reason isn’t clouded by overcompensation and a big chip on their shoulder, Someone who can reason and allow themselves to see the obvious, they might be swayed. But that kind of person probably wouldn’t have fallen for this BS in the first place.

When I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, I voted for him because I believed the country would be better off after four years of his leadership.

BDS. He was sub par, get over it.

But what you’re telling everyone in this thread, including me, is that it doesn’t matter whether we thought Bush would be good or bad for the country. Even if we could’ve judged that Bush would be a complete failure as president, we still should’ve supported him if we believed the alternative would be slightly worse.

You should have voted for him and then worked to minimize the bad influence that he had (as you did with the Meyers nomination) and maximize the good. He DID have the biggest attack on US soil since 1814 to deal with. It’s kind of sad that he doesn’t get any slack cut for that,.

So no matter how bad I thought Bush would be as president, I was doing my country a service by supporting him so long as I also believed he was going to be slightly less of a disaster than Gore or Kerry.

You still forgot the work part. And really, Where would we have been had president Gore signed international treaties limiting our CO2 emissions? Do you think the USA could ever recover economically with paying even more for energy?

Patriots shouldn’t be obligated to support an option they believe is bad for the country just because the other major choice on the ballot is even worse

Welcome to life. Patriots roll up their sleeves and get to work to make a bad situation better.

Patriots should look at those two bad options and see that the political system needs major reform

So get on it. Staying home on election day isn’t doing that. Losing elections to socialists isn’t going to do anything for conservative principals.

I had to pull the proof out of you with towing cables and a pair of pliers. But once I saw the proof you provided, I immediately dropped my defense of those particular posters.

So you were outgunned on every level, top to rock-bottom. Check.

You’re your own biggest fan and booster. Too bad no one else shares such a high view of your abilities.

When you opt not to fight at all you are putting everything above country, including your own convenience. I can’t celebrate that with you.

Voting is not fighting. And declining to vote in specific circumstances isn’t giving up.

When you vote for what you believe is a bad choice – be it Barack Obama, Zell Miller, or George W. Bush – you implicate yourself in all those bad decisions that happen under that man’s leadership.

You don’t get a patriotic pass just because you suspect things would have been worse if you hadn’t supported the “less bad choice.” You can’t win an argument by saying, “Sure, Bush sucks. Sure, he ran the economy into the ground and left us with two unwinnable wars because he focused more on nation-building than national security. Sure, he nearly destroyed his party and left most people in the country with a bad taste in their mouths. Sure, Obama followed in his wake. But at least Bush was slightly better than the alternatives.”

Even if you believe this line, you won’t convince anyone who isn’t deeply partisan like you into believing it. And so independents will judge you and your political choices as mere partisanship, and they will judge your future choices as less attractive to them because they will no longer trust your judgement.

When I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, I voted for him because I believed the country would be better off after four years of his leadership. I didn’t think Bush would be a great president or even a good president, but I also didn’t think he would be a bad president. (I was less sure of this in 2004, but I still voted for him.) I didn’t believe I was supporting the “less bad choice.” Bush was an uninspiring choice for president, but not a bad choice.

In retrospect, it’s clear I was wrong. It’s clear those conservatives who didn’t support Bush saw him more accurately than I did. But at least my intentions were in the right place.

But what you’re telling everyone in this thread, including me, is that it doesn’t matter whether we thought Bush would be good or bad for the country. Even if we could’ve judged that Bush would be a complete failure as president, we still should’ve supported him if we believed the alternative would be slightly worse. So no matter how bad I thought Bush would be as president, I was doing my country a service by supporting him so long as I also believed he was going to be slightly less of a disaster than Gore or Kerry.

Patriots shouldn’t be obligated to support an option they believe is bad for the country just because the other major choice on the ballot is even worse. Patriots should look at those two bad options and see that the political system needs major reform and better options in the future, and they should work to that end. Deliberately supporting bad leadership is inexcusable in a man who loves his country.

When you finally showed that at least some of those supposedly conservative voters cast their ballots their Democrats, I immediately renounced them.

After I re-re-re showed you.

3) Been n [sic] obnoxious idiot.

I certainly can be obnoxious, but if you want to see the best combination of obnoxiousness and idiocy, look in the mirror.

So you were outgunned on every level, top to rock-bottom. Check.

You’re pretty obviously one of those guys who puts party above country.

If, for instance, there was a Democrat like Zell Miller running against Chris Christie, (Who, now that you asked me, I absolutely loathe) I would pull the lever for Miller without hesitation and then work to keep the lesser angels of his nature in check. By doing that I would be choosing the easier fight, the 10% fight rather than the 40% fight. When you stay home in the face of someone like Obama you are choosing the 100% fight, or with Hillary the 90% fight. When you opt not to fight at all you are putting everything above country, including your own convenience. I can’t celebrate that with you.
This post is about to drop off the bottom and be lost to archives, you can go hide in shame now. I’ll just add another notch to my keyboard. :-D

You have: 1) Sided with people who advocate voting for democrats to bring about the destruction of the GOP and/or the country.

Liar liar pants on fire.

When you finally showed that at least some of those supposedly conservative voters cast their ballots their Democrats, I immediately renounced them. Until then, all I did was defend the sentiments they expressed in this thread and demanded you prove your allegations.

2) Defended sitting at home on your ass and not voting as a viable political strategy for perusing conservative objectives

“Perusing.” I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Perhaps you mean “pursuing”, in which case, yes, I do defend not voting for Democrats as the best way to pursue conservative objectives. And I don’t much care whether those Democrats call themselves Democrats or Republicans.

Yay Nixon, was he a conservative?

No, he was not. He was pretty damn liberal, and the country would have been better off without his presidency.

The National Review, in fact, refused to endorse Nixon for his re-election campaign in 1972. By that time, the NR editors had seen enough. Wage and price controls. Affirmative action. Ramping up inflation to spur economic growth to help his re-election campaign. Government spending at LBJ’s Great Society levels. It was all too much.

Even so, I don’t remember anyone calling Nixon a “Rockefeller Republican.” He was always a moderate and too obviously self-interested a politician to cling to any particular ideology. He was liberal at the time because he thought liberals had the upper hand.

3) Been n [sic] obnoxious idiot.

I certainly can be obnoxious, but if you want to see the best combination of obnoxiousness and idiocy, look in the mirror.

I’ve already established Regan [sic] wasn’t when he was governor.

You’ve established no such thing. You’ve established that you’re a dumbass, and your idiocy runs in the family.

There you go, lying again. You really do have a s#itty character.

You’re pretty obviously one of those guys who puts party above country. There’s no lie in pointing that out.

I’m standing up to you. While I admit it’s not a brave task, it’s certainly a necessary one.

You have: 1) Sided with people who advocate voting for democrats to bring about the destruction of the GOP and/or the country. When you finally were made to understand that was what you were doing you did the whole Emily Litella “never mind” thing without having the class to apologize.
2) Defended sitting at home on your ass and not voting as a viable political strategy for perusing conservative objectives. 3) Been n obnoxious idiot.
None of that is “necessary” none of it is standing for anything other than not standing.

And the home of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.

Yay Nixon, was he a conservative? I’ve already established Regan wasn’t when he was governor.

I’m sure my parents would have never hired your mom as a nanny.

As if they could afford such a thing as a nanny. As if you had “parents” as in plural.

Carter says a lot of a stupid things that only stupid Democrats and RINOs (like you) believe.

There you go, lying again. You really do have a s#itty character.

Amazingly, you still must have some of that fifth essential food group laying around that my parents sold your parents.

The only thing your mother had to sell were her filthy, illegitimate, self-delivered, oxygen deprived, jumped up chimp-children that were the occasional product of her night train fueled grope-fests with whomever could choke back their own vomit in order to participate. Congratulations on somehow missing the roto-rooter that your governor made legal.

A word of advice, wheat thin boy. “Beclowned” doesn’t need a hyphen.

A word of advice, no one gives a rats ass that you can type up your posts in MS Word. It won’t make up for having nothing to say.

Said the proven liar-troll who doesn’t have the guts to stand up for the country.

I’m standing up to you. While I admit it’s not a brave task, it’s certainly a necessary one.

I can only imagine the genetic cesspool that produced someone who has made the ass out of themselves here as you have.

I’ll have you know that I come from the finest Übermenschen stock.

Did your parents think lead pant chips were a vegetable?

No, but we did get rich convincing your parents that those lead wheat thins were one of the five essential food groups. How I was to know that my family legacy would later haunt me in the form of a deranged man-boy who now spends all his time as a full-fledged member of the Bush Bunghole Brigade on the internet.

By anyone, including people in the military industrial complex who would get together for dinner parties, Captains, Admirals, CEO’s and the like…

So quote them. If you have General Jack Ripper or Colonel Bat Guano calling Reagan a “Rockefeller Republican” in 1976, let’s see it.

Should be worth a laugh, Mandrake.

Just because it wasn’t spoken about in your white-trash doublewide in California, the flake state…

And the home of Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon. Unfortunately, the RINOs here took over the GOP and now it’s hard to find a conservative on the ground. I won’t let them do the same thing happen nationally.

It just means it wasn’t discussed by whatever prostitute was bouncing you on their knee at the time.

I’m sure my parents would have never hired your mom as a nanny.

Whom Carter blames for his loss in the election.

Carter says a lot of a stupid things that only stupid Democrats and RINOs (like you) believe. Carter could have taken every single vote from Anderson and still lost that election. Anderson won six percent of the vote and Reagan won by ten.

That’s the problem with Democrats and RINOs. They’re still losers even when they’re in league with each other. NEVER vote for either one.

Amazingly, you are still missing the point. Reagan’s record wasn’t conservative.

Amazingly, you still must have some of that fifth essential food group laying around that my parents sold your parents. Please put those fake wheat thins down. They’re not really wheat thins, and they’re not an essential food group.

Had someone wanted to screw with your mind to make you stay home there was plenty there to do so.

I’m not the one who belongs to the Bunghole Brigade, the strength-in-numbers movement by guys who want to both screw with their mind and have others screw with it as well.

You chimed into a conversation I was having with someone else.

No, I applauded a sentiment I saw expressed in a post. That’s it. I didn’t realize at the time I was walking into your girls’ multi-year cat fight.

You have be-clowned yourself here…

A word of advice, wheat thin boy. “Beclowned” doesn’t need a hyphen. I know you think a hyphen makes you look smart and sophisticated and therefore must be the right spelling, but try to avoid going with your feelings on such matters and instead go with the actual English orthography found in most standard dictionaries.

Said the proven liar-troll who doesn’t have the guts to stand up for the country. I can only imagine the genetic cesspool that produced someone who has made the ass out of themselves here as you have. Did your parents think lead pant chips were a vegetable?

Yet outside of your mentally-challenged family, Reagan was called none of those things.

By anyone, including people in the military industrial complex who would get together for dinner parties, Captains, Admirals, CEO’s and the like… Just because it wasn’t spoken about in your white-trash doublewide in California, the flake state, doesn’t mean that there were not people discussing it. It just means it wasn’t discussed by whatever prostitute was bouncing you on their knee at the time.

Somebody did split the party, goofy. I already told you his name: John Anderson, a left-leaning Republican…

Whom Carter blames for his loss in the election. Amazingly, you are still missing the point. Reagan’s record wasn’t conservative. Had someone wanted to screw with your mind to make you stay home there was plenty there to do so.

You addressed me first. My “hear hear” was not addressed to you.

You chimed into a conversation I was having with someone else.

You then dragged me into this cat fight.

You have be-clowned yourself here, you are now hereby excused from the “cat -flight”. Buh by.

Rick Santorum is the worst of all possible worlds, a religious conservative who believes in a nanny state to keep people in line. He is a big spender and has declared himself against libertarians. He’s a RINO. All true, See how easy that was?

I told you, mental illness runs in your family.

The word [RINO} didn’t exist. He was [a RINO].

The term “Rockefeller Republican” existed. The term “Gypsy Moth” existed. The term “Me-too Republican” existed. And they meant all the same thing back then as RINO means today. Yet outside of your mentally-challenged family, Reagan was called none of those things.

So you speak for “everyone”. I didn’t get the memo. You are wrong but the point was, [Reagan's] record was peppered with liberal policies and decisions, had someone been clever enough to split the party you would have heard it.

Somebody did split the party, goofy. I already told you his name: John Anderson, a left-leaning Republican congressman who won more than 6 percent of the vote in that 1980 election.

Fortunately, very few Republicans heeded Anderson’s call. He probably took more votes from Carter than Reagan.

And Gerald Ford blamed Reagan for his close loss to Jimmy Carter in 1976, because Reagan ran so hard against the president in the 1976 primary and then didn’t help Ford out much in the general election. It’s a matter of record. You can look it up.

Another lie.

You addressed me first. My “hear hear” was not addressed to you. You then dragged me into this cat fight.

Rick Santorum is the worst of all possible worlds, a religious conservative who believes in a nanny state to keep people in line. He is a big spender and has declared himself against libertarians. He’s a RINO. All true, See how easy that was?

But Reagan wasn’t called a RINO

The word didn’t exist. He was. what you are trying to say is that it didn’t catch on in the press. There was ample material there to trash him as such had the DNC caught on to the strategy that there are so many conservatives that can be screwed with.

Everyone in both parties who attacked Reagan attacked him as too extreme. They thought he would start a war. They thought he would throw the poor and elderly out on the street.

So you speak for “everyone”. I didn’t get the memo. You are wrong but the point was, his record was peppered with liberal policies and decisions, had someone been clever enough to split the party you would have heard it.

It’s crazy of you to claim that you can say that [Reagan’s] less than conservative record was never a topic of discussion.

Of course his deviations from conservative orthodoxy were occasionally a topic of discussion. But that has nothing to do with whether they were frequent enough to create a meme that Reagan was considered the equivalent of a RINO. They weren’t. End of story.

Every conservative who has ever run for office has occasionally deviated from conservative orthodoxy. But that hasn’t turned every one of them into RINOs. Santorum, for example, voted for Bush’s NCLB and the Medicare Modernization Act, but no one calls Santorum a RINO. They complain about him for other reasons. (Paul did call him a “big government conservative.”)

And the point you stupidly missed is that his record was such that he could have been trashed as a RINO to the point where a gullible fool such as yourself would have stayed home or voted for Carter.

But Reagan wasn’t called a RINO, and no one stayed home on election day in 1980 because of his lack of conservatism. Everyone in both parties who attacked Reagan attacked him as too extreme. They thought he would start a war. They thought he would throw the poor and elderly out on the street. Etc.

A handful of Republicans (and more Democrats) even voted for the third party presidential candidate and former Republican John Anderson because they thought Reagan was too right wing.

Stop making up history.

Again, before the election my father thought he was a complete phony and a draft dodger…

And some fools thought Eisenhower was a genuine Communist. Look, your family’s record of mental illness and how it mixes with politics is of no interest to this discussion.

Since the word RINO hadn’t been coined (it probably came from a democrat paid for PR firm to split off the erratic from the GOP to help the democrats win elections) phrases like Hollywood draft dodger, soft on communism and abortionist were. It’s insane of you to say that no one thought or said otherwise

So did anyone other than your father call Reagan a “Rockefeller Republican” or “Gypsy Moth” back in the seventies? No, no one did. No one was that idiotic. A couple of hard right commentators might have questioned the strength of Reagan’s conservatism at the time (which is not the same thing as calling him a RINO), but they were crowded out by the number of people who questioned whether Reagan was too extreme to be president.

That’s been up there since 10:43, ECT yesterday. About time? What’s wrong with you?

I didn’t see it. But I don’t live here at this site. So the customs of how “moderation” are handled are new to me. I was basing my comments only on what I read here in this thread, and so some of your comments about the posters here seemed unjustified to me, especially since you were lumping me in with them.

I retract that part of my criticism of you. For some of the so-called conservative posters here, you are more than justified in saying that they are directly supporting the Democrats.

I wasn’t. Perhaps you should have not waddled into a conversation that didn’t involve you without the back-story.

Not so, meathead. And your quote, which you finally got right, shows that you argued that you remembered that Reagan was “called the equivalent of a RINO.” You’re wrong.

It’s crazy of you to claim that you can say that his less than conservative record was never a topic of discussion. And the point you stupidly missed is that his record was such that he could have been trashed as a RINO to the point where a gullible fool such as yourself would have stayed home or voted for Carter. I posted some of the things he did as governor, you blew it off. Done.

That doesn’t mean that everything Reagan did was conservative or uncontroversial with conservatives, but he wasn’t called the equivalent of a RINO.

Again, before the election my father thought he was a complete phony and a draft dodger… Since the word RINO hadn’t been coined (it probably came from a democrat paid for PR firm to split off the erratic from the GOP to help the democrats win elections) phrases like Hollywood draft dodger, soft on communism and abortionist were. It’s insane of you to say that no one thought or said otherwise

Learn how to argue before you start to make an argument

I didn’t start this and your argument is crazy. He had a relatively un-conservative record of raising taxes, spending, signed the most liberal abortion bill in the country, etc, You would have been loudly calling yourself a hero for voting for Carter to get a pat on the back here.

The topic is, Was Reagan considered the equivalent of a RINO?

No, what I wrote was, for the fifth time, “I remember, he was called the equivalent of a RINO”. He was, I heard it, it was with solid basis and you saying otherwise is crazy. I grew up in what was an anachronism even then: My parents were in their late 40′s when I was born, for my 13th birthday I was given a rifle. Dad fought in WW2 and met mom when she was working in the USO. The way we graduated from eating at the kiddy table at thanksgiving was to do a hitch in the Navy. Is it impossible to conceive that such people and their peer group would not see ’70′s Reagan as less than conservative? Especially compared to someone like Goldwater?

Did the anti-abortion crowd lose faith in Reagan because of the bill he signed as governor? Clearly, they didn’t

There were no mobys on Hot air to jerk them around by their insecurities, otherwise…

Finally. It’s about time.

That’s been up there since 10:43, ECT yesterday. About time? What’s wrong with you?

But all of the posts you link come from old threads, not this thread.

So what?

I was referring to posts made in this thread,

I wasn’t. Perhaps you should have not waddled into a conversation that didn’t involve you without the back-story.

I don’t agree at all with those posters who choose to identify as conservative and then vote for Democrats.

WELL THAT WAS THE MAIN PROBLEM. Awesome, you have harangued me for 2 days because you climbed on board a thread, sided with what you thought were the cool kids and now it turns out that you don’t agree with them about the main reason I have been pissed off with them. This “vote democrat to screw the Republicans (or the country)” thing has been a meme here, it has been since ’08 when there was an open registration and a bunch of people popped up first, saying that Hillary Clinton was the “true conservative” and then they would rather stay home or vote democrat then see McCain elected. Same thing in ’12. So thanks for all this. Really, thanks for pissing me right the hell off because you didn’t have the foggiest idea what had been going on.

Your insecurity is pretty obvious. “superior man”. You need to proclaim that a heck of a lot, it’s the heart of why you need to look at others and call them RINOs, Its how you have been jerked around by the nose into doing what is in the exact opposite of your best interests, Not too superior. Stupid.

Why should I pretend you’re smart, when it’s obvious from your writing skills that you’re not?

And, hey, I’m being kind. I could’ve mentioned your atrocious logical reasoning. But the superior man doesn’t feel the need to bring up every little thing to win an argument.

Said the political strategist who has defended losing elections to gain influence in the political process… There are more independents than ever. It very well could.

No, they won’t. Independents don’t like to identify strongly with either party. That’s what makes them independents. They don’t answer phones or go door-to-door. They stay at home and complain about both parties. Even when you win them (as Obama did in 2008), you just win their vote; you don’t win their hard work and their strong identification with your cause.

Neither do you. Nor do the lot you have associated yourself with.

Yes, I do. And a lot more than an uneducated jackass like you will ever be able to send. Although now I’m sending my money to groups like NumbersUSA and other nonpartisan issue-oriented groups that I favor.

While I was out trying to get people to the polls the democrats were running circles around the GOP effort. They outnumbered and outworked us while you patted yourself on the back for staying home.

Then next time you’d better appreciate what conservatives can do and make sure they’re included in the process.

But, no, you’d rather team up with Obama and go Ruby Ridge on our ass. Like I said, not a patriot.

You personally can go to hell. I don’t want the GOP to write conservatives off because I am a conservative.

If you’re voting for Jeb or Christie, then you’re not a conservative. And don’t try to piggyback on our brand just because it’s much more popular than the GOP brand.

Point that out or be shown to be a liar again.

It’s already out there in cyberspace, bub, that you always support the “less bad choice.” Your words, not mine.

If the Republicans nominated a six-foot-high pile of shit, you’d say everyone needs to vote for him because the Democratic candidate is a seven-foot-high pile of shit. And then after the GOP elected a six-foot-high pile of shit and disaster followed, you’d happily tell everyone that we made the best possible choice.

Clearly, then, it’s not lie to say you espouse willingly contributed to a disaster for your country. That’s why you’re not a patriot.

That doesn’t mean that everything Reagan did was conservative or uncontroversial with conservatives, but he wasn’t called the equivalent of a RINO. So referring to something like the abortion law he signed as governor or the amnesty bill doesn’t prove your point.

Learn how to argue before you start to make an argument. The topic is, Was Reagan considered the equivalent of a RINO? The answer is, No he was not. Referring to controversial bills Reagan signed as governor or president doesn’t prove he was considered a RINO any more than you can prove I’m a vegetarian because you took a photo of me eating vegetables.

I never disputed any of your details about Reagan. So that wasn’t the issue. What I disputed was that any of those details gave Reagan’s critics cause to question his overall conservatism. Did the anti-abortion crowd lose faith in Reagan because of the bill he signed as governor? Clearly, they didn’t.

But all of the posts you link come from old threads, not this thread. I was referring to posts made in this thread, where I saw no one talking about supporting the Democrats. So I didn’t understand why you just didn’t link the posts in question.

But I won’t play games with you. I don’t agree at all with those posters who choose to identify as conservative and then vote for Democrats. I think enough of a message is sent if you just don’t vote for the “less bad choice.”

As for me, I will never vote for a Democrat as long as I live. I’d sooner vote for a Commie than a Democrat since the Commie at least has no chance of implementing his agenda. (And, no, I’m not voting for the Commie, either.)

Just because Republicans put up a bad choice doesn’t mean one should vote for the worse choice. That kind of thinking is too twisted for me, and I seriously wonder if those posters who say stuff like that are really conservative at all.

By declining to vote for the “less bad choice,” you at least keep your own hands clean. But your hands are dirty if you then vote for the Democrats.

You just are being deliberately obtuse, or genuinely so. Your nose has been rubbed in it, your only defense is to pretend you can’t smell it.

No, I just didn’t realize there was “moderation” at this site. Nor did I see your post earlier. Unlike you, I don’t live here at Hot Air. I rarely post. I’ve probably posted more words in this thread than I have in the rest of the site combined. So when I was defending the other posters here, I was defending only what I read in this thread.

But you could have easily referred to the one or two of those posts to make your point without delay rather than dilly-dally around.

I don’t follow cowardly parasites. Your lesson plan is idiotic and will result in the worst for the country and yourselves.

We both voted for Bush. He was a disaster. The country then overwhelmingly voted for Obama. So how did our vote for Bush save the country from disaster? It clearly didn’t. Instead, we got two disasters in a row, and the GOP was implicated in bad leadership, making winning future elections a tougher sell than it should have been.

When you support the bad, you give those who support the worse a chance to win. No Bush disaster; No Obama presidency. You can’t deny it.

Tell you something else, If it ever does go to crap I’ll be more interested in helping them ruby-ridge idiots like you straight to hell because you brought it on yourselves.

Then you’re no better than those conservatives who voted for Obama. Like them, you’re prepared to ally yourself with Democrats to hurt conservatives just out of spite.

There’s no difference between you and them.

Who is this leader that you speak of? What has he DONE to further those aims?

We’re talking about Christie, you idiot. You’re in the thread about him. Remember?

So what are you doing to prevent him from using the GOP to enable his liberal agenda for America – you know, the “less bad choice” you say the rest of us have to support.

Wrong again. I don’t wear it on my sleeve or toss it out to shore up a failed argument though.

Where? When? What branch? What was your MOS?

You have shown yourself to be a liar here.

We’re keeping score, Mate, and the number of lies you’ve told so far … well, let’s just say I can’t keep up even when I try.

Congratulations on typing it in word instead of on the site.

You need Word to correctly type in “It’s,” “have,” and “point”? Because those are the kind of words you’ve been misspelling, bucko.

At least learn to spell before insulting a superior man’s intelligence.

Congratulations on typing it in word instead of on the site.
Your insecurity is pretty obvious. “superior man”. You need to proclaim that a heck of a lot, it’s the heart of why you need to look at others and call them RINOs, Its how you have been jerked around by the nose into doing what is in the exact opposite of your best interests, Not too superior. Stupid.

Doesn’t work that way.

Said the political strategist who has defended losing elections to gain influence in the political process… There are more independents than ever. It very well could.

Independents and centrists don’t send money to campaigns or volunteer their time.

Neither do you. Nor do the lot you have associated yourself with. You have shown yourselves to be completely unreliable. While I was out trying to get people to the polls the democrats were running circles around the GOP effort. They outnumbered and outworked us while you patted yourself on the back for staying home.

You need soldiers to fight with in these political battles,

When you can’t be persuaded to get off your ass to vote against Barack Obama you aren’t a soldier or a fighter, you are a parasite.

and those soldiers for the GOP have always been filled with conservatives –

How would you know?

Write us off. I dare you. I double dare you. See how far it gets you.

You personally can go to hell. I don’t want the GOP to write conservatives off because I am a conservative. If you divorce conservatives from the Grand old Party both will be politically irrelevant. The GOP will have to move to the center to adapt which will free up the dems to go far left. Which is what will happen.

You should have voted for Gore/Kerry and put in a good word for bin laden, that would show how pure you are to the rest of the fools in your online echo chamber.

Yeah, I know.

Yup..

I’m a patriot

Patriots aren’t defined by love of politicians or political parties; they’re defined by love of country, and you’ve already admitted that you love your party more than you love your country.

Point that out or be shown to be a liar again.

No person who willingly contributes to a disaster for their country, as you espouse doing,

Haven’t done that either, liar.
OK, since you are just a little insecure liar who needs to thump his chest online and is willing to damage the country to do so, why go further? You have a vendetta against the GOP to the point you are willing to empower full on socialists to wreck the USA, So is there a point in continuing? You are an enemy to the country, gullible and unhinged, I actually hope you are on a watch-list.

No they don’t support you. An argument that Reagan did something in his political life that conservatives either disagreed with or that didn’t follow current conservative orthodoxy is not the same thing as saying that some conservative voters in the seventies and eighties did not want to vote for Reagan because they thought he was a RINO.

And this was the argument, idiot:

I remember, he was called the equivalent of a RINO. (He signed the most liberal abortion bill in the USA as governor of California. He was soft on immigration and did brig us the biggest illegal amnesty in the countries history and I remember my father even complaining he was am effeminate actor (dyed his hair) who was soft on communism. I wonder how many here would have stayed home for Reagan after a few of Allahpundents servings of raw meat?

Read it and try to respond with out mischaracterizing it. Or don’t. Your opinion is oficially worthless.

No, that wasn’t it. You’ve quoted yourself in the wrong place.

Nope, that’s the topic.

It hasn’t been shown because you can’t show it. All you can do is link to Google.

There is still a post in moderation, however I showed it here. You just are being deliberately obtuse, or genuinely so. Your nose has been rubbed in it, your only defense is to pretend you can’t smell it.

Declining to vote for a bad choice is not surrender. Voting for the “less bad choice,” when you know it’s still a bad choice, is surrender

Still just half the equation, the other half was work though, so…

Yeah, we all agree with that. But that means when you vote for the “less bad choice,” even though you know it’s bad for your country, you are contributing to the disaster, not helping to solve it.

No, you are not; you are giving yourself a fighting chance to stop it. Not just caving in and whining here.

We are leading by example, and we’re telling you to learn from it.

Your example = lazy cowardice.
I don’t follow cowardly parasites. Your lesson plan is idiotic and will result in the worst for the country and yourselves, Thanks for finally aligning yourself with the rest of the “destroy America to save it” crowd. Though. You aren’t patriots, you are an enemy of the country.

You’re no patriot. You’re a coward. Learn the difference

.
I am fighting every step of the way for this country, you are enabling the socialists because you are too much of a lazy POS to get in the game. That makes you the coward.
Tell you something else, If it ever does go to crap I’ll be more interested in helping them ruby-ridge idiots like you straight to hell because you brought it on yourselves.

That’s a lie. You don’t work to keep them accountable. What have you done to prevent a man who is for the federal government fighting global warming, pushes amnesty, and thinks Obama is the bomb, from leading the GOP?

Who is this leader that you speak of? What has he DONE to further those aims? I can only fight actions, not thoughts. Grow up.

You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about because it’s obvious you’ve never served.

Wrong again. I don’t wear it on my sleeve or toss it out to shore up a failed argument though.

I have served in war,

You have shown yourself to be a liar here. Regardless, it wouldn’t make your ideas any less stupid.

Any potential threat in Iraq was removed by the end of the first year after our invasion began.

So you took out Iran and Saudi Arabia as well, God help you, you just aren’t that smart.

Don’t use the men in uniform to defend your dumbass POV when many of those men and women could give a shit what you think.

You don’t speak for anyone here but yourself, a warped little liar who couldn’t be called on to defend the country from the likes of pajama boy.

You should have voted for Gore/Kerry and put in a good word for bin laden, that would show how pure you are to the rest of the fools in your online echo chamber.

Yeah, I know. You voted for the “less bad choice,” and you’re still proud of it. You voted for the guy who accelerated government spending to the point he made Bill Clinton look conservative. You voted for the guy who made the U.S. public distrust the GOP as the party best suited to handle national security. You voted for the guy who federalized education. You voted for the guy who supported the bailouts and whose economic leadership lead to the worse economy since the Great Depression. Your voted for the guy who pushed for amnesty. You voted for the guy who allowed North Korea to go nuclear because he was too busy trying to save face in Iraq. You voted for the president who wasn’t even allowed to show up at his own party convention in 2008.

I did those things, too, but at least I learned from my mistakes. But you’re too smart to learn from yours because you believe in the “less bad choice.”

I’m a patriot

Patriots aren’t defined by love of politicians or political parties; they’re defined by love of country, and you’ve already admitted that you love your party more than you love your country. No person who willingly contributes to a disaster for their country, as you espouse doing, can be called a patriot.

That insult is much more believable coming from me to you than you to me. At least learn to spell before insulting a superior man’s intelligence.

No they don’t, they can move to the center. Did that ever occur to you?

Doesn’t work that way. The GOP has tried to move to the center and what have they got for their effort? Two losses in a row, and before that two close elections against two marginal Democratic opponents.

Independents and centrists don’t send money to campaigns or volunteer their time. You need soldiers to fight with in these political battles, and those soldiers for the GOP have always been filled with conservatives – even when the candidates are moderate, the volunteers are largely conservative.

What are going to do? Hire a bunch of Mexicans to take our place? Good luck with that. The Mexicans will just take your money and then go vote Democratic after they clock out.

That insult is much more believable coming from me to you than you to me. At least learn to spell before insulting a superior man’s intelligence.

No they don’t, they can move to the center. Did that ever occur to you?

Doesn’t work that way. The GOP has tried to move to the center and what have they got for their effort? Two losses in a row, and before that two close elections against two marginal Democratic opponents.

Independents and centrists don’t send money to campaigns or volunteer their time. You need soldiers to fight with in these political battles, and those soldiers for the GOP have always been filled with conservatives – even when the candidates are moderate, the volunteers are largely conservative.

What are going to do? Hire a bunch of Mexicans to take our place? Good luck with that. The Mexicans will just take your money and then go vote Democratic after they clock out.

I’ve written you off, why wouldn’t the party?

Write us off. I dare you. I double dare you. See how far it gets you, dickhead.

You should have voted for Gore/Kerry and put in a good word for bin laden, that would show how pure you are to the rest of the fools in your online echo chamber.

Yeah, I know. You voted for the “less bad choice,” and you’re still proud of it. You voted for the guy who accelerated government spending to the point he made Bill Clinton look conservative. You voted for the guy who made the U.S. public distrust the GOP as the party best suited to handle national security. You voted for the guy who federalized education. You voted for the guy who supported the bailouts and whose economic leadership lead to the worse economy since the Great Depression. Your voted for the guy who pushed for amnesty. You voted for the guy who allowed North Korea to go nuclear because he was too busy trying to save face in Iraq. You voted for the president who wasn’t even allowed to show up at his own party convention in 2008.

I did those things, too, but at least I learned from my mistakes. But you’re too smart to learn from yours because you believe in the “less bad choice.”

I’m a patriot

No, you’re a coward. Patriots aren’t defined by love of politicians or political parties; they’re defined by love of country, and you’ve already admitted that you love your party more than you love your country. No person who willingly contributes to a disaster for their country, as you espouse doing, can be called a patriot.

I support the best I can get and then work to keep them accountable. Got it yet?

That’s a lie. You don’t work to keep them accountable. What have you done to prevent a man who is for the federal government fighting global warming, pushes amnesty, and thinks Obama is the bomb, from leading the GOP?

Absolutely nothing. In fact, you’ve done worse than that. You’re making arguments which will ensure he is the GOP stalwart come 2016.

You’re a buttlicker, not a patriot.

LOL, irrational, arbitrary, uninformed, crazy. Send the men out on a limb to cut it off behind them so you could send them out on another limb. Perhaps it’s best that you don’t get a say in the political process. Real people have to fight those wars, right? Mr. Armchair general? Mr world leader pretend. It’s not a game of Risk.

You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about because it’s obvious you’ve never served.

I have served in war, and I don’t want a bunch of uniformed bureaucrats in Washington DC extending tours for the sake of what looks good on TV or for some idealistic goal that was never worth fighting for because it was always out of our control.

Any potential threat in Iraq was removed by the end of the first year after our invasion began. Saddam was gone and the threat of WMD was found to be nonexistent. Yet we stayed – not for national security, but for a bunch of bullshit Wilsonian ideals that were completely divorced from reality. And we suffered for it.

We had other national security threats to deal with, but because of the Bush Bunghole Brigade we were forced to endure several more years of an impotent occupation.

Don’t use the men in uniform to defend your dumbass POV when many of those men and women could give a shit what you think.